BIM-Based Life-Cycle Management for Reinforced Concrete Buildings

BIM-Based Life-Cycle Management for Reinforced Concrete Buildings

André Borrmann (Technische Universität München, Germany), Katharina Lukas (Technische Universität München, Germany), Marc Zintel (Technische Universität München, Germany), Peter Schießl (Ingenieurbüro Schießl Gehlen Sodeikat, Germany) and Michael Kluth (Consultant, Germany)
Copyright: © 2012 |Pages: 24
DOI: 10.4018/ij3dim.2012010101


This paper introduces the concept of a BIM-based life-cycle management system for reinforced concrete buildings. The system allows one to compute a prognosis of the building’s condition taking into account the material properties of individual components, the environmental load as well as measurement data from current inspections. This prognosis then forms foundations for scheduled maintenance and repair actions in an economically efficient way. A particularly important feature of the presented system is that all input data as well as the computational results are associated with a (full) 3D Building Information Model (BIM) of the construction. In this way, an easy localization of the information is achieved facilitating both the data collection and the estimation of the building condition for engineers involved in inspection planning, inspection or the scheduling of repair actions. To further facilitate data input and interpretation, a hierarchic level-of-detail approach is employed for structuring the building model, ranging from building level down to individual hot spots. Additionally, the integration of a meta-model allows the flexible adaption of the semantic data model to specific buildings types or the particular needs of the users.
Article Preview

There have been several life-cycle management systems for bridges and reinforced concrete buildings developed over the last few years. Examples include SIB-Bauwerke in Germany (Abram, 2003), KUBA-MS in Switzerland (Haller & Bascuro, 2006), DANBRO in Denmark (Henriksen, 1999), Eirspan in Ireland (Duffy, 2004), BridgeLife, MaintenanceMan and ServiceMan in Finland (Vesikari, 2006, 2008), Pontis (Robert et al., 2003) and BRIDGIT (Hawk, 1999) in the USA and the Ontario Bridge Management System in Canada (Thompson et al., 1999). There has also been high research activity over the last few years aimed at the development of more advanced life-cycle management systems (e.g., Frangopol et al., 2001; Frangopol & Neves, 2003; Neves et al., 2006; Hammad et al., 2006; Okasha & Frangopol, 2010).

In principal the existent systems can be categorized into four groups:

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Open Access Articles
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2012)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing